Vicente Calalas vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No.

122039; May 31, 2000]

AUTHOR: Alfonso Dimla
TOPIC: Breach of Contract of Carriage
PONENTE: Mendoza, J.

DOCTRINE: The liability of petitioner arises from his negligence in the performance of his contractual obligation or breach
of contract of carriage. Art. 1756 of the Civil Code provides that common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to
have acted negligently in case of death or injuries to passengers, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence
as defined in Arts. 1733 and 1755 of the Code. 

FACTS:
Respondent, Eliza Sunga took a passenger jeepney owned and operated by petitioner Vicente Calalas. The jeepney was already
filled with passengers so she was given by the conductor an “extension seat,” a wooden stool at the back of the door.
As she was seated at the rear end of the vehicle, Sunga gave way to the outgoing passenger. Unfortunately, a truck driven by
Iglecerio Verena and owned by Francisco Salva bumped the left rear portion of the jeepney. As a result, Sunga was injured.
Sunga then filed a complaint for damages against Calalas, alleging violation of the contract of carriage by the former in failing to
exercise the diligence required of him as a common carrier. Calalas, on the other hand, filed a third-party complaint against
Francisco Salva, the owner of the truck.
RTC: Absolved Calalas of liability and ruled that Salva as third-party defendant was responsible for the accident. It took
cognizance of another case (Civil Case No. 3490), filed by Calalas against Salva and Verena, for quasi-delict, in which Branch 37
of the same court held Salva and his driver Verena jointly liable to Calalas for the damage to his jeepney.
CA: Reversed RTC’s ruling on the ground that Sunga’s cause of action was based on a contract of carriage, not quasi-delict, and
that the common carrier failed to exercise the diligence required under the Civil Code. It also dismissed the third-party complaint
against Salva and adjudged Calalas liable for damages to Sunga.

ISSUE/S & RATIO: Whether or not respondent carrier is responsible for the injury caused to its passenger even when the
accident was caused by another vehicle.

RULING:  Yes. The liability of petitioner arises from his negligence in the performance of his contractual obligation or breach
of contract of carriage. Art. 1756 of the Civil Code provides that common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have
acted negligently in case of death or injuries to passengers, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as
defined in Arts. 1733 and 1755 of the Code.

This provision necessarily shifts to the common carrier the burden of proof. It is now the duty of petitioner to prove that he
observed extraordinary diligence in the care of his passengers.

However, in this case, petitioner failed to prove that he observed extraordinary diligence in the care of his passengers. It was
found that the jeepney was not properly parked and he took more passengers than the allowed seating capacity.

The taking of an “extension seat” is not an implied assumption of risk on the part of the passenger.

A caso fortuito is an event which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, was inevitable. This requires that the
following requirements be present:

A. the cause of the breach is independent of the obligor’s will;

B. the event is unforeseeable or unavoidable;
C. the event is such as to render it impossible for the obligor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner, and
D. the obligor did not take part in causing the injury to the creditor. Petitioner should have foreseen the danger of parking
his jeepney with its body protruding two meters into the highway.

On a final note, the petitioner having not acted in bad faith in the performance of the contract of carriage, cannot be made liable
for moral damages.
As a general rule, moral damages are not recoverable in actions for damages predicated on a breach of contract for it is not one of
the items enumerated under Art. 2219 of the Civil Code.

As an exception, such damages are recoverable: (1) in cases in which the mishap results in the death of a passenger, as provided
in Art. 1764, in relation to Art. 2206(3) of the Civil Code; and (2) in the cases in which the carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith,
as provided in Art. 2220.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals, dated March 31, 1995, and its resolution, dated September 11, 1995,
are AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that the award of moral damages is DELETED.